IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v12y2003i2p149-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

If Nelson and Winter are only half right about tacit knowledge, which half? A Searlean critique of 'codification'

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Nightingale

Abstract

The paper explores the inherent tensions in the relationships between different theories of knowledge. The paper shows how Polanyi's rather nebulous concept of tacit knowledge can be given a rigorous foundation in recent biological treatments that link neurological causal processes, subjective mental states and speech acts. Drawing on the work of John Searle, the paper shows how information-processing approaches relate to these 'cause and effect' relationships in order to critique the binary distinction between tacit and codified knowledge. The utility of the framework and the problems with this binary distinction are illustrated by showing the confusions behind recent theories that propose that information technologies allow the codification of tacit knowledge. Errors inherent in the idea of codification are traced back to Newell and Simon's abstract 'programme level' of explanation. Implications for science policy, technical learning, management and innovation are discussed. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Nightingale, 2003. "If Nelson and Winter are only half right about tacit knowledge, which half? A Searlean critique of 'codification'," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 149-183, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:149-183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    2. Ljubica Nedelkoska, 2010. "Occupations at risk: explicit task content and job security," Working Papers 2010/48, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    3. Ljubica Nedelkoska, 2010. "Occupations at risk: explicit task content and job security," Working Papers 2010/48, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    4. Koen Frenken, 2010. "Geography of Scientific Knowledge: A Proximity Approach," Working Papers 10-01, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Mar 2010.
    5. Lazaric, Nathalie & Mangolte, Pierre-Andre & Massue, Marie-Laure, 2003. "Articulation and codification of collective know-how in the steel industry: evidence from blast furnace control in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1829-1847, December.
    6. Manuel Lopez-Estornell, 2011. "The diffusion of knowledge in industrial districts and clusters," ERSA conference papers ersa11p368, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Dolfsma, W.A. & McMaster, R. & Finch, J., 2005. "Institutions, Institutional Change, Language, and Searle," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-067-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. Prencipe, Andrea & Tell, Fredrik, 2001. "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1373-1394, December.
    9. Manlio Giudice & Maria Della Peruta & Vincenzo Maggioni, 2013. "Collective Knowledge and Organizational Routines within Academic Communities of Practice: an Empirical Research on Science–Entrepreneurs," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 4(3), pages 260-278, September.
    10. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    11. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    12. Nightingale, Paul, 2004. "Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1259-1284, November.
    13. Biggiero, Lucio, 2007. "Organizations as congitive systems :what do they process and deliver?," MPRA Paper 3089, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Eyüp ÖZVEREN & Erkan GÜRPINAR, 2024. "More a Commons Than a Fictitious Commodity: Tacit Knowledge, Sharing, and Cooperation in Knowledge Governance," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 3824-3843, March.
    15. Paul Nightingale, 2012. "Tacit Knowledge," Chapters, in: Richard Arena & Agnès Festré & Nathalie Lazaric (ed.), Handbook of Knowledge and Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Manlio Del Giudice & Maria Della Peruta & Vincenzo Maggioni, 2013. "The ‘Right’ Knowledge and Spin-off Processes: an Empirical Analysis on Knowledge Transfer," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 4(3), pages 304-318, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:149-183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.